Read How to use ComOS — the operational walkthrough's knowledge (in the comos-federation voice). Read-only — returns composed knowledge, performs no transaction. Returns: The composed walkthrough knowledge as markdown. Zero-arg; identity-free. Example: call how_to_about with arguments {}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reinforces the annotations by explicitly stating read-only behavior and no transaction. It also adds details about being zero-arg and identity-free, providing full transparency about what the tool does and does not do.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is fairly concise but includes a few extra phrases like 'in the comos-federation voice' and an example call. These add some verbosity but are not excessive, so it remains clear and focused.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument read-only tool, the description is complete: it states what it returns (markdown), that it is read-only, and provides an example. No output schema is needed given the simple nature of the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the description explicitly states 'zero-arg', which fully covers the parameter semantics. Schema coverage is complete since there are no parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: reading the 'How to use ComOS' walkthrough knowledge and returning it as markdown. It uses a specific verb (read) and resource (walkthrough knowledge), and it is distinct from sibling tools that perform federation or introspection operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use it (when you need the walkthrough knowledge) and explicitly notes it is read-only and performs no transaction. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes its specific role clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap among introspection tools (introspection_system_probe vs. introspection_system_confidence vs. introspection_system_diff) and between similar reading tools (federation_canon_get vs. federation_tenant_info). Descriptions help clarify but boundaries are not always crisp.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (federation_bond_post, federation_bond_release), some use noun_verb (federation_arena, federation_help), and some use noun_noun (about_us_about, moltbook_read). There are also tools with dot separators (about_us_about) and camelCase (cohort_email_send) mixed with snake_case, making patterns unpredictable.
With 72 tools, the surface is extremely large and likely to overwhelm agents. While the server covers a complex federation platform, this many tools suggest poor scoping or lack of consolidation, making it hard for agents to discover and choose the right tool.
The server covers core federation lifecycle (create/list/update/delete tenants, manage managers, bonds, keys) and some platform operations, but there are gaps such as missing tenant deletion workflow details, no explicit tool for updating manager info, and no direct tool for tenant-level settings beyond basic update. The introspection suite is thorough but the domain may not be evenly covered.
